This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgryka.
Sienkiewicz, M; Kowalczyk, E; Wasiela, M (2012). "Recent patents regarding essential oils and the significance of their constituents in human health and treatment". Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery. 7 (2): 133–40. doi:10.2174/157489112801619665. PMID22642543.
Suggest Some Discussion of Ancient-Traditional Methods
I was researching the subject of natural oil extraction, aromatic or not, with an emphasis on simple and primitive methods, with immense difficulty. Though I see you have linked to a page on Enfleurage in the See Also section, might I suggest some inclusion of this method in discussion of method here? The Enfleurage page, I should add, had a modern bias too; I encountered a page through independent online searching discussing the ancient extraction of aromatic oils during the Biblical Exodus by the heating and wringing of olive oil-soaked wool cloth wrapped around perfume sources (petals), rather than the glass plate method discussed on the wiki page. Perhaps primitive methods of oil extraction in general still need some work (though apparently steam distillation has been practiced for millenia). Just a couple of thoughts from a passing user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Huangdi please explain why you are trying to remove reference to "therapeutic" use of essential oils as pseudoscience. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Because that's not scientifically established? Because the opinion piece you cite doesn't even state the claim you are making on its behalf? Because this is more NPOV: "Research on the effectiveness of aromatherapy — the therapeutic use of essential oils extracted from plants — is limited." Huangdi (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
That is a weird answer. Stuff like what is found here, is what that line is addressing. I don't even know what "Balance hormones" means. It is pseudoscientific bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Using false arguments fails to answer my questions. Nowhere is the source I am citing related to your specious link. More importantly, you have failed to address in any way the point regarding my genuine NPOV edit. Huangdi (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
the sources you introduced here and here are not reliable sources per MEDRS. We don't use university or hospital websites to source content about health or science. Please read WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the phrase inferring that the Benifits are the subject of ongoing research is misleading. I can find no references to any peer reviewed scientific research. I agree it should be classed under pseudoscience Sarboss (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The section of “ingestion” does not provide any cited information in regards to human consumption. Additionally, the section labeled “Pharmacology and medical uses” needs reliable references to indicate how essential oils could or could not be used for medical purposes. It may be necessary to create a “Side Effects” page to inform people of the potential risks involved in the usage of essential oils. The structure of the article is not fluid or easily maneuvered. Possible edits to reorganize the page might be beneficial. Ray2140947 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That is actually a definition of volatility, not volatile. I changed it to the applicable OED definition of volatile, I think it's simple without being simplistic. And I linked the first usage of volatile in the lead to the Volatility_(chemistry) page, for those who want more depth on the topic. CleverTitania (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The sentence “Aromatherapy may be useful to induce relaxation, but there is not sufficient evidence that essential oils can effectively treat any condition” is implying that more study is needed. But the link clearly indicates that there has been ample studies with no link to a benefit. Perhaps it should be changed to “Aromatherapy may be useful to induce relaxation, but there is no evidence that essential oils can effectively treat any medical condition Sarboss (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Go ahead. --Zefr (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)